Thursday, April 26, 2012

Maryville Public Planning Charrette Set

Got an opinion on what the future of Maryville should include?  It was announced last month that a community meeting would be held to help form guidelines for future developers of the site.

And now there's a date.
"Maryville Public Planning Charrette @ Clarendon Park Community Center, 4501 N. Clarendon. Tuesday, May 8th, 7pm.
This meeting is an opportunity for public discussion about community interests and concerns over future potential development at the Maryville site (Montrose and Clarendon). 
There is currently no specific proposal being considered."
If you have strong opinions, come to the meeting.  You can comment here all you want, but if you don't tell your brilliant ideas to the people who count, where it counts, when it counts, it all means bupkis.  So mark your calendar for May 8th and show up in person if you want to help make a difference.

21 comments:

  1. I will attend this meeting for sure. I am tired looking out my high floor windows and seeing this ugly and eyesore property that is dropping the value of everyones property that lives near it. Now that summer is near masses of homeless are seen daily climbing over the fences and making the back dock areas their living quarters. Forget about low income housing. we got enough trouble with the ones we got now. I like to see a park area garden, senior citizen housing and a senior neighborhood center. Turn the parking lots into pay for parking for near neighbors to park.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I cant believe that preservation chicago is worried about this thing being torn down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. lol @ a friggin park

    Hopefully a nice dense market rate rental highrise gets built in this dense urban neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everyone is entitled to share an opinion as to what they think would be the best re-use of the Maryville site.

    With that said, people need to keep in mind, that just because we get to share our opinions does not mean we will get everything (or anything) that we ask for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great, just what the hood needs - more evil condo owners

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah because that's what must be wrong with the area... evil condo owners, whose property taxes pay for services in Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just for the record Preservation Chicago is only speaking up for the Cuneo Building on the east parcel. I agree, the structure has merit. Design can be subjective we all know, mid-century modern no less then other styles. Call it what yu want that building is built better then the majority of these "late-century" masterpieces we have thourghout the n-side. IMHO.

    The big brown chunk of a building in the above photo is the west parcel.

    There is a north parcel as well, the existing surface parking lot.

    Yay Uptown!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't understand people that want and suggest a park. Itsn't this a private piece of property?? Who buys private property and makes it a public park? A park, next to a park across the street from a park?

    J C - astounded by our attitude about condo owners - people just trying their best to live decently. Why, exactly, are they evil?

    Finally, charrette or not, lets all get used to this crumbling eye sore. It will be around for a long time. The community successfully made sure of that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. pretty sure JC's comment was dripping in sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  10. Atlas said: "I don't understand people that want and suggest a park. Itsn't this a private piece of property??"

    The east parcel was city-owned and was donated to the Sisters in the 1950s for the purpose of them opening a non-profit charity hospital. Many people would like to see it returned to its original use as parkland rather than the Sisters making a huge profit off land that was given to them for their work for the public good. Perhaps that is a good use for the TIF funds.

    "Who buys private property and makes it a public park?"

    Late in the negotiations, Sedgwick offered to donate back the east parcel to the city, so it's not as out there as one might imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Could the site be redeveloped with an eye to achieving the stated goals in the 46th Ward Master Plan re. families with children:

    1. More housing for middle-income families with children is needed to add more diversity in the ward.
    2. Issues that discourage middle-income families from remaining in the ward need to be further identified and addressed. Anecdotally, it appears that addressing concerns about educational options, public safety matters, and more family-friendly housing would help.

    The French International School (http://www.lyceechicago.org) recently purchased Ravenswood Hospital and committed to redeveloping that site as their new school facility. Does anyone know if they were encouraged to stay in the area at the Maryville site? That would have been more in keeping with the original use of the property.

    ReplyDelete
  12. family friendly / middle income housing sounds like market rate apartments to me. Retaining a private school for the wealthy does little to help middle income folks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Because no one seems to be able to propose residential on that site that doesn't include a tower, I'm trying to see alternatives that site that will dovetail with the Ward's Master Plan without requiring residential.

    That's why I'd prefer to see a private. multicultural, not-for-profit school that offers financial aid for those unable to pay on that site.

    After all the negative feedback about towers vis-a-vis the Lighthouse proposal, the Zoning & Development Committee's "Ideas for Community Goals" under the category "Building Size & Materials" at last night's meeting were still as follows:

    4 to 5 floors max for tower base, north & east parcels
    Tower relate to nearby high rises (28-55 floors)
    Conformity along the lakefront
    Glass on first floor
    Use materials significant to the neighborhood
    Brick/stone base, glass above

    Even the Chicago Housing Authority abandoned highrise residential years ago!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Even the Chicago Housing Authority abandoned highrise residential years ago!"

    so what, Chicago is currently building numerous residential high-rises in neighborhoods that appreciate market rate density and are better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those towers may be viable solutions to increase population density and value appreciation in those areas. Uptown already has one of the highest population densities in the city with its current housing stock. It doesn't lack residents as much as some key things to hold residents here at various junctures--for example, when their children need schooling options or when they are trying to purchase certain kinds of items or services.

    Towers have huge potential, but it is essential to make long-term assessments as to how they are currently built and then to seriously advance them in terms of energy-efficiency and accessibility in the event limited energy availability (other cities are doing this, not infrequently by setting up competitions for prime real estate locations).

    The other night when a lower rise tower on Marine Drive was without power for hours due to a grid issue, many of its inhabitants were basically trapped in their apartments, so these energy-related issues are actual and vital to safety and well-being in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All this "no towers" talk reminds me of the group of Couraj, or whatever tortured acronym they're calling themselves nowadays, adherents waiting outside the Z&D meeting doing an exit poll to see if the Sedgwick plan had been approved. "Thank God! Thank God!" when someone told them about a no vote.

    Surely, gyldengyl, you wouldn't be objecting to more middle class families moving to those towers for the same reason the Couraj people do? Because they want Uptown to stay poor and needy, and hundreds of middle class renters, paying market rate rents, are the enemy of that Shillerian dream?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not familiar with that group so cannot weigh in on whether or not I'd support their objectives.

    gg, you seem to know more about the history of the site than I do. Do you know why the property is still tax exempt status so long after the closing of the Maryville facility there? My understanding is that the usual test is that a religiously exempt property has to be used in service of the religious mission. Is there a grace period before it is returned to the tax rolls?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "All this "no towers" talk reminds me of the group of Couraj, or whatever tortured acronym they're calling themselves nowadays, adherents waiting outside the Z&D meeting doing an exit poll to see if the Sedgwick plan had been approved. "Thank God! Thank God!" when someone told them about a no vote.

    Surely, gyldengyl, you wouldn't be objecting to more middle class families moving to those towers for the same reason the Couraj people do? Because they want Uptown to stay poor and needy, and hundreds of middle class renters, paying market rate rents, are the enemy of that Shillerian dream? "

    You see the same thing in the southern part of the 46th with the Gill Park folks and the north halsted development...one sure to improve that mini sketchy stretch. (way to Cap on that one)

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have no knowledge of tax and property law, gyldengyrl, so you'll need to check with an expert on charitable organizations to inquire about the legal tax status of the Maryville property.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Heard it on the grapevine... the city council is still predominently Catholic, the church still has disproportional political power in this city, it's carreer suicide to "pick on the poor nuns" and make them use it or lose it in regards to the re taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'd be surprised if the sisters themselves wouldn't be supportive of a use of the property/facility fairly in keeping with the work they did for so many years, though I can well imagine the discussion would have political dimensions, as Bradley points out. Has anyone ever spoken to the Sisters themselves directly?

    Thanks for your reply, gg. It was your mention of the land having been given by the city for the purpose of building a charity hospital that made me wonder if there were no conditions on the gift that might permit the city to take back the land or otherwise recoup funds for its upkeep now that the original purpose of the donation is no longer being fulfilled. Sure you are right that it'd be best to have a professional review the original donation paperwork.

    ReplyDelete